Bill C-93 (Historical)

An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis

This enactment amends the Criminal Records Act to, among other things, allow persons who have been convicted under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act only of simple possession of cannabis offences committed before October 17, 2018 to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the period required by the Criminal Records Act for other offences or to the fee that is otherwise payable in applying for a suspension.

Criminal Records Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this evening and I thank him for shedding some new light on this debate.

The NDP thinks that this is too little too late. I know my colleague does not agree that this is too little, but we would have preferred an expungement instead of a simple record suspension. It is too late, because the government was in a rush to legalize marijuana and open shops across the country, but it forgot many things, such as prevention, public safety and the fact that the provinces and municipalities were left to deal with difficult situations with no resources. It is also too late because there are just three weeks left in this Parliament. It will be very difficult to properly bring clear legislation to fruition.

Does my colleague agree that it is too late and that the government botched this legislation, for the reasons I mentioned or for any other reasons he can think of?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, in all matters, there are ways of doing things.

The past four years have been intense, for example, with Bill C-45, the most botched bill that the House has ever had to deal with. It nevertheless has a big impact on Canadian society.

The same is true with Bill C-93. Time is running out. As I mentioned in my speech, we proposed simple, intelligent amendments, but the government rejected them. It is also still not listening to police officers.

Lastly, the government has had no idea what it was doing all along.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, began his speech by talking about all the work done by the committee.

Some of his comments are the same ones we often hear when undertaking studies in committee. The Conservative members proposed amendments during the process. Our approach is very technical. We do not play political games when we move amendments. We really try to improve the legislation and how it will apply in real life.

The member started to speak a little about how this bill was treated in committee. I would like to hear more about the Conservative amendments that were rejected.

I also think that this bill should have been introduced along with Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. In fact, the three issues should have been dealt with in an omnibus bill.

As a member of Parliament, I voted in favour of the expungement of criminal records. At the time, I believed that it would be the best approach. Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 were passed and received royal assent, and the Liberals have had plenty of time to try to find a technical solution to the problems faced by people with a criminal record who are applying for a pardon, while addressing criminal records at the provincial and municipal levels and the associated costs.

I would like my colleague to talk about the work done in committee. Which Conservative amendments were rejected by the government, even though they would have reduced the impact on people on the ground and made this bill better?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

One amendment the government agreed to covered situations where an individual who wants to apply does not have information about the arrest, such as the name of the city and the province. The documents relating to the criminal record exist only on paper, so the information might be in a drawer at some police station or courthouse. Sometimes the individual in question is somewhere else in Canada and does not have access to the documents or may not even remember where the arrest took place.

To simplify things, our amendment suggested that applicants could submit a sworn statement attesting to the details of the arrest and the individual's inability to obtain the documents. We were prepared to accept a sworn statement in order to process applications without proper documentation because accessing documents is very complicated. The Liberal committee members agreed to the amendment, but the government rejected it, and we have no idea why.

Now people have to fill out forms. Those 10,000 people with criminal records I was talking about earlier are marginalized and do not really have much in the way of resources. That makes it hard for them to know where to go to get the forms. Accessing the forms online is easier, so we suggested that systems should be digitized to improve the situation. The government rejected that idea too. If the government had agreed to that amendment, it would have made things easier.

Our requests were practical.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not think this bill goes far enough. It is too little, too late. Let me explain. It is too little because this bill was not introduced until after cannabis was legalized. The government dragged its feet on record suspensions. It waited too long. The legalization of cannabis came into effect, but people still have criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. We are not talking about trafficking marijuana here, just simple possession. These people have a criminal record for simple possession, when it is currently legal to use marijuana.

By the way, just because something is legal does not mean it is a good idea. I want to say that even though it is legal to use marijuana, it is not really a good idea to do so. I also want to say that the legislation legalizing cannabis should really have included a major public health campaign to make people aware of the effects and risks of using marijuana. Marijuana is like any other substance. It is legal to drink alcohol, for example, but it can be addictive. I know what I am talking about. I know people who are addicted to alcohol. Marijuana can also be addictive. That is obviously the case with tobacco as well, which is also a legal substance. Cigarettes are a terrible product that can be addictive. These are legal products. The government can legalize these products, but it also needs to inform the public of the risks associated with using them.

We are talking about people who have a criminal record for simple possession. This has nothing to do with trafficking. It is really about people being caught for simple possession. These people therefore have a criminal record for something that is now legal and has been legal for a few months. Drug use should never be criminalized. Instead, it should be regarded as a public health matter. I am thinking of the opioid crisis raging across Canada, for example. We should be taking a public health approach.

This bill is too late because legalization came into effect several months ago, yet we are only just debating this legislation today. This legislation allows for criminal records to be suspended. This means that criminal records are set aside, but they are not expunged.

As a result, people who are granted a record suspension will still have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They will always have to wonder what might happen when they try to rent an apartment, find a job or apply to volunteer. They will be asked if they have a criminal record, and they will have to answer that their record was suspended. Their criminal record will not be completely expunged. The same will be true when they want to travel. What will happen when they want to travel? If the government really wanted to do things right, it would have passed the excellent bill introduced by my colleague from Victoria.

His bill was introduced a long time ago. In October 2018, my colleague from Victoria introduced a good bill. We were ready. We had done our homework. Instead of using that fine bill, the Liberals showed that had no regard whatsoever for Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis, something that is no longer a crime, and who face barriers to things like employment and housing.

It is far too late to wake up now. There are less than three weeks left before the end of this Parliament. Now the government is waking up and introducing this bill. We are at third reading stage. We are moving quickly, but unfortunately we are cutting corners. We are not being thorough, and it is truly worrisome.

There is a not-for-profit organization in my riding or in the central Quebec region that does very important work. As others have mentioned, the problem with the Liberal philosophy is the lack of emphasis on resources.

I would like to talk about an extremely important resource. The organization is called Action Toxicomanie. This community-based organization was founded in 1991. It provides services in the central Quebec and Drummond region.

The organization serves a significant number of young people through its addiction prevention programs, which are also offered in schools. Action Toxicomanie is a community-based not-for-profit organization that promotes healthy living and addiction prevention and is geared to young people from 10 to 30. As I was saying, the organization takes a holistic approach that focuses on promoting physical and mental health as well as social skills development. Interventions can be individual or group-based and seek to develop individual knowledge and abilities.

Action Toxicomanie's website details the organization's mission, which is to prevent addiction, provide accurate information about substances and related addictions, support the development of social skills, inform and support parents and adults, intervene with teens and adults with emerging substance abuse issues, and support teens with clear substance abuse issues and refer them to specialized services.

I would like to congratulate the entire Action Toxicomanie team on the excellent work they are doing with our young people. As I have always said, resources like this are extremely important. When the government legalized cannabis, it put the cart before the horse. In their rush to legalize cannabis, the Liberals forgot to safeguard public health in this country, implement a comprehensive public education and prevention campaign, provide provinces and municipalities with the right resources to prepare for this major social change, and make sure organizations working to educate youth and prevent addiction were ready to deal with the change and properly equipped to go into schools and communities to inform people. That is why I find it virtually impossible to support the bill.

I just want to digress for a moment if I may. We are talking about physical and mental health. I just talked about a very good organization, Action Toxicomanie.

I would like to talk about the book N'oublie jamais by Gregory Charles, which my mother gave me. She may have been giving me a message to never forget to think about her, never forget to call her or never forget to go see her. Mothers send subtle messages like that. This book talks about Alzheimer's.

Gregory Charles comes from Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, in my riding. He grew up there. He recently visited École Jean-Raimbault in Drummondville to talk to the children about his passion, his faith in music and his strong values. He did this for the children. He came to visit the children who are studying music and spent over an hour playing music with them. I simply wanted to acknowledge the time he spent with these children.

His book highlights the importance of hard work and strong values and talks about how crucial it is to take care of those around us. I think that is what my mother was trying to tell me when she gave me this book. I thank her for that.

I thank Gregory Charles for what he did for the community of Drummond, and I congratulate the team at École Jean-Raimbault, especially Denis Lambert, who spearheaded this initiative.

I would like to give some other examples.

When it comes to the legalization of marijuana, the government is only taking half measures. Before I talk about them, I want to give an example of another issue on which the government is only taking half measures, and that is the housing crisis.

Drummond is experiencing a housing crisis. The vacancy rate is 1.7%. The vacancy rate for three-bedroom homes is 0.4%. What is more, prices are going way up. Over 15,000 renter households in Drummondville are being forced to spend more than half of their annual income on housing. When households have to spend half of their annual income on housing, they do not have much money left over to meet their other needs.

David Bélanger, the chair of Drummond's municipal housing board, said:

When people have to spend nearly one-third of their income on housing, there are obviously other needs that are not being met. We are developing projects to create more affordable housing. The housing crisis has two dimensions, namely accessibility and affordability.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about pardons for simple possession of cannabis. The member is talking about the issue of housing and a housing strategy. I would ask that he be a little more relevant to the legislation before us.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is aware that the rules about relevance, one might say, are not closely observed. I trust the hon. member will over the course of his remarks address the topic and bill at hand.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain the context to my hon. colleague, who was obviously not listening very carefully to my speech because I clearly said that I was going to digress a bit to explain how the pardon bill was a half measure. I was giving another example of the Liberal government's half measures. I will obviously be coming back to the subject of pardons momentarily.

I was trying to say that the government is also taking half measures with housing. It is another example. If I can finish my point, it needs to be said that one in five Canadians spends more than 50% of their income on housing. Even though the Liberal government has a national housing strategy, 90% of the funding will not come until after the next election. The government was not announcing a national housing strategy. It was making an election promise. In February 2019, the Liberal government voted against an NDP motion to act quickly and create 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing within 10 years. The government could have taken our suggestion, and this measure would have provided some much-needed accessible and affordable housing in Drummond. Too many Canadians are spending more than one-third of their annual income on housing. Too many Canadians are spending half of their annual income on housing. They are struggling to find housing and grappling with a housing crisis. Housing is hard to come by, but affordable housing is even more difficult to find.

I want to come back to the topic at hand, the government's lack of ambition with respect to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Why is there such a lack of planning and lack of ambition?

As I mentioned, in October 2018 we were ready to introduce a bill that would have completely expunged criminal records, not just suspended them. That would have reassured people who have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis but not for drug trafficking. These were people who had a health problem and consumed a substance that, at that time, was illegal but today is legal. We had a plan.

In closing, I will talk about another example, and that is climate change. The Liberal government is implementing half measures. It will meet Stephen Harper's weak targets for 2030 a full 200 years too late. The government says that it will take action to fight climate change. It is putting a price on carbon but has left out the largest emitters.

Last Friday, we tabled the plan called the courage to act. Not only will it create jobs, but it will address climate change. This is an ambitious and courageous plan. That is what the constituents of Grand Drummond and Canadians across the country want from their government. They want ambition and courage.

Therefore, I will close my speech with a quote that sums up everything I have said about the bill:

I should first note that Bill C-93 is better than nothing. But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament. You can do better. You must do better. Instead, I would urge a scheme of expungement along the lines already provided for in the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act.

That is what Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence attorney, said in committee to explain why this is important.

In closing, let me repeat his words: “But better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.”

Unfortunately, the same standard seems to apply to social housing and the environment, and that is why we need to do more and be ambitious and courageous.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were discussing Bill C-93, the act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspension for simple possession of cannabis, just to frame my comments.

The practical effects on pardons and expungements are virtually identical. It is important for our constituents to know that pardoned records are sealed and segregated and they can only be reopened under extraordinary circumstances, such as committing a new criminal offence. The effect of the pardon is protected by Canada's Human Rights Act, so it is not something that can be used in the terms that he mentioned of getting rental agreements signed. A record is available when it needs to be available.

Expungement did not exist until Bill C-66 last year and really it was only intended to be allowed for criminal records of offences that can constitute historic injustices.

The separation here for our constituents to understand is that a pardon maintains a record when we need it. Could the member maybe comment on the difference between pardons and expungements?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Should we maintain our records only when we need them, Mr. Speaker?

Why would we need them? We do not need that criminal record. That is why it should be expunged. My colleague just suggested that records should be kept if they are needed, but there is no need because this substance is legal now. Criminalizing people for simple possession of cannabis was extreme in the first place.

That is why we introduced a bill. We wanted to decriminalize cannabis. It is appalling that people got a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That kind of record has ruined people's lives. That is why we need to more forward with this.

You may choose not to believe me. I admit I am no expert on the subject, but Solomon Friedman was absolutely right when he said that, while this bill is better than nothing, better than nothing is a mighty low bar for our Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member tried to tie in the idea of half-baked. I could tie in the idea of hypocrisy.

It is interesting to hear NDP members talk about expungement versus a pardon. In the last federal election, the NDP said they were in favour of decriminalization, so the whole issue of expungement or a pardon would not even be a part of what we have been debating today, for the NDP platform.

I am glad that the NPD members have changed their opinion. I am glad they have decided to support what Canadians have been telling the government to do and what the government has done, and that is to legalize cannabis.

Why did the NDP come to the conclusion that the government's approach to the legalization of cannabis was a much better way than what the NDP were proposing in the last federal election?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague, who has a lot of experience in the House.

If we had decriminalized marijuana use, we would have introduced legislation to expunge criminal records, that is certain. That is what we have been saying from the beginning. We oppose the criminalization of drug use. Of course we would have expunged criminal records, but we would have done so in a structured and carefully planned manner. We would not have waited until we legalized cannabis, as the Liberals did, only to scratch our heads afterward because we had forgotten those with criminal records. We would not have then rushed a bill through the House of Commons and send it to committee, so we could finally say that we were moving forward, despite the sloppy work, less than three weeks before the end of the session. We would have done things properly.

Moreover, in October 2018, the NDP member for Victoria introduced his bill, which was already ready. Unfortunately, the government decided not to support that legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, who is a strong advocate for the people of Drummond. We had never heard so much about the people of Drummondville before he came to the House. This experienced member is doing an excellent job.

I would like to ask him a question. There is a choice to be made between imposing a complicated and expensive process for granting people individual pardons and expunging people's criminal records.

If Canadians choose the NDP on October 21, when we come back to the House, would the NDP be willing to expunge all these criminal records, or will it continue to force people to go through a very complicated and expensive process to get a pardon?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his excellent work, his kind words and his visits to Drummond. He came to Drummond several times to lead sessions on tax credits for people with disabilities. I thank him very much, as do the people of Drummond. Thanks to him, they ended up receiving a few thousand dollars. They were entitled to that money, but this was not well advertised by the previous governments.

The member's question is very important. Of course, if the NDP takes office in October 2019, it will remedy the current situation. The NDP will not only implement a process to permanently expunge criminal records, but it will also work on addiction issues and treat drug use as a public health issue. The NDP will be sure to organize public education and awareness campaigns and invest both the human and financial resources necessary to deal with this issue. It must be said that addictions are a serious social problem that has to be taken seriously.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I am quite astonished. I went back and looked at the NDP platform to see what it wanted to spend in this year if it had been elected into government back in 2015. This party quite clearly must not have understood the seriousness of the housing crisis in this country because, when we look at its platform for homelessness, it was going to spend an extra $10 million a year. That is it. I can walk through Vancouver and find $10 million of new investment spent in that city by this government alone. We did not spend $10 million more; we spent $100 million more. The numbers that really get me are the three zeros for the last three years of its housing program. There are zero dollars for new affordable housing. That is how the party addressed the crisis in its platform. Thank God it did not get elected.